61–70 of 352 posts
It is hard to figure out what a "strategic partnership" really means at the moment but .. - I hope this strategic partnership does not mean 0 organic search results above the fold. That is what Yahoo is doing at the moment. - I hope FF does not come up with any Yahoo spyware/Toolbars etc. Search is a weird thing on internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a strong option in place from Google, but Mozilla decided not to go with them as a global default in order to promote choice.
I don't think I follow this argument. Can you explain it further? It feels like Yahoo probably just offered more money.
Google has been the Firefox global search default since 2004. Our agreement came up for renewal this year, and we took this as an opportunity to review our competitive strategy and explore our options.
In evaluating our search partnerships, our primary consideration was to ensure our strategy aligned with our values of choice and independence, and positions us to innovate and advance our mission in ways that best serve our users and the Web. In the end, each of the partnership options available to us had strong, improved economic terms reflecting the significant value that Firefox brings to the ecosystem. But one strategy stood out from the rest.
When viewed through these lens, many of the seemingly ancillary Google business units start to make strategic sense. Android (control the device), Chrome (control the browser), Fiber (control the tubes).
Each of these channels is an opportunity for disruption by some competitor search engine and Google wants to make sure they don't get blindsided. Or one of the gateways could demand a massive tribute for Google to pass through (cable companies are pushing for this via the war against net neutrality).
If Google didn't have Chrome and Firefox was the leading browser, they'd be in big trouble with this news. Lucky for them they thought about this a long time ago and built a browser which now accounts for 50% of market share.
Yahoo NEEDS this deal. For Google, it's a nice to have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was a strong option in place from Google, but Mozilla decided not to go with them as a global default in order to promote choice.
I don't think I follow this argument. Can you explain it further? It feels like Yahoo probably just offered more money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't forget though that Yahoo Search runs off Bing.
But for how long? They've reached the mid-point on the Bing deal. Yahoo has been working on two search projects internally. They want to own search once again.
Yahoo! never owned search before. The brief period where Yahoo! Search was an independent, rather than provided by a third party, was after Google became dominant (and Google was the last exclusive provider of Yahoo! Search before that independent period, which ended with the most recent Bing deal.) Before Google, Yahoo! Search was Inktomi (who was later bought by Yahoo! after Yahoo! stopped relying on them), and before that AltaVista (also later bought by Yahoo!)
Yahoo! has only ever owned being the interface to search.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But for how long? They've reached the mid-point on the Bing deal. Yahoo has been working on two search projects internally. They want to own search once again.
Does Yahoo's 10-year search deal with Microsoft/Bing restrict Yahoo from working on competing (i.e. not internal) search engines? Is Yahoo developing their own search engine, just waiting to deploy it when the Microsoft/Bing deal expires in 2020? :)
While I believe the party line is probably true ("Mozilla decided not to go with Google"), it's also disingenuous.
Mozilla chose not to go with Google because Google wasn't willing to pay what they were before. They straight up told Mozilla this 3 years ago when they signed the billion dollar contract; Mozilla had 3 years to become profitable. That's why they switched focus to FirefoxOS; they thought that by now they'd be profitable via selling phones and the app store. (At the time, Bing was bidding against Google, however Mozilla went with the smaller check from Google because they knew using Bing would seem like selling out.)
For the record, Google made billions off being Firefox's default search engine. They paid Firefox $300mil a year for three years, but that was only a small fraction of how much Google profited from Firefox searches. Not sure if it's still true, but three years ago they made more from Firefox than they did from Chrome.
So, yes, Mozilla could have gone with Google still. It's not like Google said "nope, you can't use us as the default!". However, they went with Yahoo! because Google wasn't willing to pay what Mozilla needed. The whole "Mozilla picked Yahoo! to enable choice" has been tweeted by every Mozillian I know (and said multiple times in this thread), but it's a meaningless statement. If they really meant that, you'd be prompted when you opened Firefox the first time to pick a search engine.
Some more details: * This is a new, more flexible partnership strategy. * Continuing the existing relationship with Google was an option, but Mozilla chose to end the Google relationship. * All the options Mozilla considered had strong, improved economic terms (but the concrete numbers are not public). Because all the options had improved economics, that allowed Mozilla to really consider the strategic outlook. * The…
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2150981/yahoo-drops-do-not-tr...
Some more details: * This is a new, more flexible partnership strategy. * Continuing the existing relationship with Google was an option, but Mozilla chose to end the Google relationship. * All the options Mozilla considered had strong, improved economic terms (but the concrete numbers are not public). Because all the options had improved economics, that allowed Mozilla to really consider the strategic outlook. * The…